in my view these are all stakeholders, have a stake in a design
1. if someone is purchasing what we design, s/he must have an interest in
doing so
2. if someone is operating the artifacts, s/he must have an interest in
doing so
3. if someone is indirectly partaking in the operation of drawing desired
services from the artifact, s/he must have an interest in doing so
4. if someone is directly benefiting from the services rendered by the way
of the artifact, s/he must have an interest in doing so
5. if someone is adversely affected by the artifact throughout and all along
its operation, s/he must have an interest in doing so
admittedly, these are different kinds of interest and a designer must try to
understand the stakes they have, their resources to act on it, pro or con
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Francois-Xavier Nsenga
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Users
Dear Jerry, Terry, Chris, and all,
Beyond regional semantics of the terms "constituency", "stakeholders",
"shareholders", "community leaders", "political representatives",
"bureaucratic civil servants" etc., etc., wouldn't it be appropriate for
designers, prior to dealing with all these others' respective agendas and
desiderata, just to focus first, as the profession exclusive expertise, on
specific usage requirements of those who:
1. purchase whatever we design
2. operate the artifacts, especially when these are of material kind
3. indirectly partake in the operation of drawing desired services from the
artifact
4. directly beneficiate from the services rendered by the way of the
artifact
5. adversely affected by the artifact throughout and all along its operation
Any further thought on this?
Kind regards
Francois
Montreal
|